Politics – Some thoughts on where things stand after last night.
Not a member? Sign-up today!
getbackerzoo
leeharris1969
sandur
andieaw
toilnaa
not2needy
nitegarito
Sandra_honestly
BoBo in Texas
Muraha
alexgarciainseattle
expursuit
linna4linna
singer52
tchef
jumpmaster
fisher100
ETproductions
pamcak3
UndergroundAttraction
mmrhe
TheRealizer
lenseview
mozzer
libsRfunny
PracticalAdWords
CuteOne87
SkyNika
askripko
MidnightPrism
mazafaka
garier
contentmanager
bluetexasvalley
neer1010
Nowalive
stephenhacking
waveringhobbit
vettenut
rhrtjhj
zaph22
SonOfTheMask
DonDavis
bizexpert
Raiderwall
CactusAnnie
Nixie
birddog54
ftheadnine
BillSmythe
314)
Darn good article. Love the way he laid it out.
She's going down in flames. Willy is imploding. Have you seen how frazzled they both look and act these days? Soon they will be consigned to the scrap heap of history!
They'll be ok he will still be thought of highly, but the race baiting in the last few weeks will leave a little tarnish to the image he once had. The high dollar speach circuit will ease their pain.
The Fall of the House of Clinton? Aren't we being a little melodramatic here? After all, if Clinton loses she'll still be the senator from the influential state of New York, who served on powerful committees like the Budget; Armed Forces; Environment and Public Works; and the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committees. I hardly think one failed presidential campaign represents the "Fall of the House of Clinton."
After all, a failed presidential campaign in 2000 didn't spell the "Fall of the House of McCain." If anyone's "house" has fallen, it is the Bush house. His disastrous legacy made it unlikely for an incumbent (Dick Cheney, Condi Rice, Donald Rumsfeld) to run as his successor. And GW Bush's unpopular policies will also make it difficult for his brother Jeb to run for the presidency for the foreseeable future.
Hillary will be fine. She'll make a fine senator or even VP. Her options for running for president in the future are still wide open.
Nah, this is a referrendum on the Cliontons and they are toast. I wouldn't be surprised if Hitlery doesn't lose her next Senate race. No way she'll be a VP choice. With Obama secretly flying to Chapel Hill to see John Edwards. Why would he want the Clintons looking over his shoulder the next four years anyhow?
So he's secretly flying to Chapel Hill, but somehow you know about it?
Doesn't sound like much of a secret to me!
Repugnicon spin, Adaguy...they can't help themselves, it's like breathing to them! lol
True story. Nice try.
"Senator Barack Obama and his former Democratic presidential rival, John Edwards, held a private meeting today in North Carolina, aides confirmed."
http://politics.propeller.com/story/2008/02/17/...
It is true. Maybe they are considering running together?
I think he was trying to get his endorsement.
I think that Edwards would be a logical running mate for him and I suspect that Obama is planning this.
Actually, it was a secret until after he did it. He unexcpectedly took time off from his campaign schedule. It was covered in the press. Look it up, genius!
Why should I look up facts when I have you to confirm or deny everything?
News of Obama's trip leaked out afterwards, Tessylowlife!
DROP:
"I wouldn't be surprised if Hitlery doesn't lose her next Senate race."
I would be. I believe Hillary's approval rating among New Yorkers is nearly DOUBLE that of GW Bush's national approval rating.
DROP:
"No way she'll be a VP choice. With Obama secretly flying to Chapel Hill to see John Edwards."
Edwards would make a fine VP choice also, but Obama doesn't need Edwards because they attract the same demographic. Both can win over independents, moderate Republicans, and Southerners--except Edwards wasn't able to bring out the crowds of independents that Obama was.
Hillary's appeal is to a nonoverlapping demographic, namely women, Hispanics, blue-collar workers, older voters, and the more leftwing of the Democratic Party. The Clintons would provide experience for his team. And unlike Edwards, Hillary has been able to draw traditionally disenfranchised voters--just not as many as Obama has.
Together they could make a powerful team. McCain would be toast.
Bill and Hillary would be competing with Obama in the White House. He'd be mad to want them around. Actually, Obama has been making strides in gaining the support of white voters, so he really doesn't need the Clintons.
DROP:
"Bill and Hillary would be competing with Obama in the White House. He'd be mad to want them around."
What do you care? You're not voting for Obama. I think I'll let Obama assemble his own administration.
DROP:
"Actually, Obama has been making strides in gaining the support of white voters, so he really doesn't need the Clintons."
The Clintons' contribution extends beyond winning over white voters. The Clintons can help Obama win over Hispanics, older voters, and the more leftwing establishment of the Democratic Party. The Clintons also come with a large treasury of donations to contribute to the general election. Finally, the Clintons will bring experience and perspective to the White House should Obama include them.
The Clintons have much more to contribute than "white voters."
Looks like Obama is winning all those groups over on his own. He clearly is looking to ditch the Clintons as intently as the party leadership is.
DROP:
"Looks like Obama is winning all those groups over on his own."
I don't think that's true, particular with Hispanics. One reason why Hillary Clinton staked Texas as her big comeback state is because she polls so much better than Obama with Hispanics. To a lesser extent, the same is true of older voters and the leftwing Democratic establishment (which is how Hillary Clinton is beating Obama in the superdelegate count despite Obama's lead in the popular vote). The data does not support your statement at all.
DROP:
"He clearly is looking to ditch the Clintons as intently as the party leadership is."
Something tells me that you're in no position to interpret or dictate what the Democratic party leadership intends to do. Again, there's no proof to support this statement at all. In fact, Hillary Clinton's lead in the superdelegate count seems to contradict it directly. No, the party leadership is still very much behind Hillary.
You mean, "Burn America burn.", Tessyloser.
I liked her better when she was just a serial neger. Now she's just plain obnoxious.
You said a mouthfull.
Race baiting? You've got to be kidding. No one, and I mean no one is relying on race more than Obama. It is why he is so unquestionably supported and so uncritically examined by the media.
If whites rallied around a candidate because he was white the way that blacks have rallied to Obama, they would be called racists. And by the way, I'd love to know the specifics about all this "race baiting." Then again, I know specifics aren't a priority with the Obama campaign.
MRCHGO:
"Race baiting? You've got to be kidding. No one, and I mean no one is relying on race more than Obama. If whites rallied around a candidate because he was white the way that blacks have rallied to Obama, they would be called racists."
So, first Obama was accused of "not being black enough."
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,...
"As much as his biracial identity has helped Obama build a sizable following in middle America, it's also opened a gap for others to question his authenticity as a black man....Identity politics is overstated. In fact, in South Carolina, both John Kerry and John Edwards received twice as many black votes as Sharpton."
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?st...
"Sen. Barack Obama may be the first African-American candidate to enter a presidential race as one of the front-runners. But can the Illinois Democrat command the black vote? That remains unclear."
And now you're accusing him pandering the MINORITY vote? FYI, Obama has gone out of his way to AVOID being painted as "the black candidate."
http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0128/p08s01-comv....
"If South Carolina's Democratic primary is a sign, then the presidential election will be more about ideas than the politics of identity. Race and gender did somewhat sway Saturday's contest, but the top issue for voters was more universal: the economy. But the point is that Mr. Obama stuck to the high ground during this first primary in the South and didn't play the race card, even though 55 percent of voters in the South Carolina primary were black."
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/348890_o...
"Barack Obama is walking a tricky racial line, trying to excite black support in the South without getting tagged as "the black candidate" and scaring off anybody else. Here in South Carolina, Obama says over and over that color doesn't matter."
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/348890_o...
Obama told an audience at Winthrop University, 'If I came to you and I had polka dots but you were convinced that I was going to put more money in your pockets and help you pay for college and keep America safe, you'd say, "OK, I wish he didn't have polka dots, but I'm still voting for him."'The more Obama is seen through a racial lens, the more it might hamper him in other, bigger states, especially those where voters might be unaccustomed or unwilling to support black candidates." As for his own campaign, he said his public career has been 'based on the idea that we're all in it together, and that black, white, Hispanic, Asian, all of us share common dreams, common fears and common concerns.'"
You accuse Obama of race baiting? Where do you get your information? Obama has gone OUT OF HIS WAY to avoid the label of the "black candidate."
You're cleary misinformed.
and in Nov, they will be joined by John McCain.
now please tell us how the guy all of you cons have been bashing since he became the GOP frontrunner is the better candidate for the job, WITHOUT sounding ridiculous....
you guys are SO gonna get a taste of reality in Nov when McCain gets creamed.
i swear we wont laugh, well ok, maybe just a little
Hitlery doesn't have to wait until November to get creamed! Keep laughing when you pay your income taxes next year.
We're going to pay them no matter who gets in. With the deficits that the Bush administration has run up at some point it's time to pay the piper.
It must truly be sad to be a citizen of this nation and realize that the only thing you care about, ultimately, is the demise of a Clinton.
More important than the economic health of our nation.
More important than the numerous failures of The Modern Republicans
More important than the thousands of dead and dying in Iraq
More important than the loss of millions of jobs
More important than the Republican welfare state where they design welfare for wealthy and deny health care to children.
The Modern Republican party is corrupt, morally bankrupt, a collection of hypocritical juxtapositions, ideologically driven to be incompetent - but as long as a Clinton is in remission - The Modern Republican is content.
Everyone should care about seeing evil vanquished.
You don't care if the guy who cuts off the dragon's head is a knight in shining armor or a ruthless viking, you are just glad that it's now powerless to cause further harm.
And yet, Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, and The Modern Republican marches on.
Although, not for much longer I wager.
That's a wager you would lose, welfare girl.
Pinch me, I almost felt sorry for her. All her life she has wanted to be President. When she decides to run a virtual unknown takes the lead from her and everyone one running. I am sure she is saying "My life is just one horror after another."
"Pinch me, I almost felt sorry for her."
Not me. Not one bit.
Well, he did say "almost"
They've said that about Rush since 1992 haven't they AG?
Talent . . .on loan . . . from Godddd. :D
Certainly a lower manifestation of gawd - demiurgic - half blind, and therefore rather stupid. A 'real" god knows how to transcend politics and bifurcation. Rush only knows how to make a fast buck. In a land where the dollar is god, can we expect anything more? Maybe we should. Maybe we can - but first we have to imagine the possibilty... and that's the last thing Rush and many of our politicians want us to do.
"Beating the libs with half my brain tied behind my back."
Heh heh ; )
Hey M. Moore made money Dogg,, I bet you're ok with that huh?
If you are stupid enough to allow people like Rush, Colter, Carvile, or Moore to form your opinions, then your ignorance is well deserved!
I agree Ada,,, same holds true for Propeller, Move on, Daily Kos and others places,,,,,
It is an altogether "interesting" gawd who tears at his own flesh and blood and calls it a "victory". Surely not human - not made in our own image so to speak. He's all yours, AG.
And you're here why Tessy?
No one pays any attention to Rush except those who are not well enough informed to make up their own minds.
You're sadly mistaken. Rush gives a voice to our already formed opinions. And does it well.
I can't count the number of times this prescription junkie has changed his stance because he was told to do so by the corporate heads.
Even as far back as the Clinton admin., he waited to hear Clinton's opinion on everything before he stated his opinion. Rush is nothing but a constant smear campaign!
When the Cuban boy was found floating in the ocean, and brought to Miami, and immediately Rush said "send him back". He continued this rant for three days until Clinton's attorney General made the same demand. Then Rush changed his vote and said it was a ruthless decision. Can you tell me that this makes sense? Are you not paying attention to what he says each day?
How many time have you heard him refer to Monica as "that poor helpless child"? Try listening for once!
Sounds like you are a devotee.
I listen to him when there is nothing else on, as I like to hear what the callers have to say. I'd enjoy it a lot more if he would shut up and answer the phone!